Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2010-08-11, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo at geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>>> In message
>> <abe9b308-db83-4ca8-a71a-12d2025a7615 at i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, Alex
>> Barna wrote:
>>>>>>> On Aug 10, 10:05 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
>>>>>>>>>> Can???t understand the point to it. ???GUI automation??? is a contradiction in
>>>> terms, because a GUI is designed for use by humans to do manual tasks,
>>>> not ones that can be automated.
>>>>>>> Automating GUI is for testing.
>>>>> But the most egregious GUI problems are going to be with humans being
>> unable to figure out how to do something, am I right? How are you
>> going to uncover those problems, except by testing with real people?
>> Automated testing isn???t going to do it.
>>>> Automated GUI testing isn't intended to uncover those sorts of
> problems in GUI design. Automated GUI intended to uncover problems in
> the underlying program functionality, and is used mainly for
> regression testing to insure that changes made to a program didn't
> cause any unintended changes in program behavior.
>> Automated GUI testing often isn't even being used to test the program
> whos GUI is being automated. It's often used to test _other_ programs
> with which the GUI-automated-program interacts.
>>Yep, as an example, I worked on a cardio medical system (X ray). In
order to get to the market, such system must prove its robustness, part
of the proof was about chaining thousands of patients without a crash
nor X ray failure.
This is where GUI automation comes in. The tool was simulating the
interaction between a doctor and the system application GUI and was
working 24/7.
JM